Too Much Sitting Linked to Women’s Cancer Risk

Image Credit: Credit: gamble19/Shutterstock.com

Sitting for a long time is linked with a variety of diseases, including an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Now, a new study finds that sitting may be particularly harmful for women by raising their risk of developing several cancers.

Women in the study who sat more than 6 hours a day were at a higher risk of developing breast cancer, ovarian cancer and the blood cancer multiple myeloma compared with women who sat less than 3 hours a day.

In addition to raising women’s risk of these specific cancers, the study also showed that “Longer leisure time spent sitting was associated with a higher risk of total cancer risk in women,” the researchers wrote in their study. Women who sat for more than 6 hours a day had a 10 percent increase in their risk of developing any cancer, according to the findings published June 30 in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The researchers looked at about 70,000 men and 77,000 women who participated in a long-running study called the American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Survey cohort. Over 17 years, from 1992 to 2009, more than 12,000 women and 18,000 men in the study were diagnosed with cancer. The researchers controlled for multiple factors including BMI and physical activity levels.

Most men did not appear to be at an increased risk for cancer from too much sitting. Among men who were obese, however, sitting for long periods of time was associated with an 11 percent increased risk of developing cancer, according to the study, which was led byAlpa Patel, an epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society.

The researchers said additional study was needed to confirm the findings, but the study was just the latest in a large group of findings that have highlighted how too much sitting may have long-lasting health consequences.

In a 2010 study that Patel also led, researchers found that sitting for long periods was associated with a host of health conditions including cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes. Those findings suggested that sitting and being less active might affect how metabolic chemicals in the body regulate numerous systems in the body, according to the researchers.

That study also found that women who sat for 6 or more hours daily were 37 percent more likely to die over a 13-year period compared with those who sat for 3 hours or less daily. For men, the risk of dying increased 17 percent over the same period for those who sat at least 6 hours a day.

“Several factors could explain the positive association between time spent sitting and higher all-cause death rates,” Patel said in a statement. “Prolonged time spent sitting, independent of physical activity, has been shown to have important metabolic consequences, and may influence things like triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, cholesterol, fasting plasma glucose, resting blood pressure and leptin, which are biomarkers of obesity and cardiovascular and other chronic diseases.”

Earlier this year, a study published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine found that people who sit for long periods were 24 percent more likely to die during the course of the study, including those who were more active after long periods of sitting.

Read full Article: Live Science

U.S. fracking linked to higher hospitalization rates: researchers

Image Credit: REUTERS/ANDREW CULLEN

People who live in areas near hydraulic fracturing are more likely to be hospitalized for heart conditions, neurological illnesses and cancer, according to researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University.

Fracking is an oil and gas extraction technique using a mixture of water, chemicals and sand to break apart underground rock formations. It has triggered a surge in U.S. energy production in recent years, along with a debate over whether the process causes air and water pollution.

The study, published this week in the journal PLOS ONE, looked at hospitalization rates in parts of Pennsylvania from 2007 to 2011 and found them significantly higher in areas with fracking compared to those without.

“At this point, we suspect that residents are exposed to many toxicants, noise and social stressors due to hydraulic fracturing near their homes and this may add to the increased number of hospitalizations,” Reynold Panettieri, one of the study’s authors, said in a press release.

The team found that 18 ZIP codes in its study had a well density greater than 0.79 wells per square kilometer, and residents living in these ZIP codes were predicted to have a 27 percent increase in hospitalizations for heart conditions compared to areas without any drilling. The study also showed higher rates of hospitalization for neurological illness, skin conditions and cancer.

The researchers said the study does not prove any cause and effect between drilling and health problems but that the findings “suggests that healthcare costs of hydraulic fracturing must be factored into the economic benefits of unconventional gas and oil drilling.”

Read Full Article: Reuters

Senator: Compensate residents near site of atomic bomb test

Image Credit:AP Photo, File

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — People who lived near the site of the first atomic bomb test in the New Mexico desert and later developed cancer and other health problems need to be compensated, a U.S. senator said Thursday.

The federal government neglected residents of the historic Hispanic village of Tularosa near the Trinity Site, where the weapon was detonated on July 16, 1945, Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said in a speech on the Senate floor on the 70th anniversary of the test.

“The rest of the world didn’t know about the tragedies that happened in the Tularosa Basin. For a long time, the government denied that anything happened at all,” Udall said. “Attention was not paid then. It must be paid now.”

Udall met with residents and family members who lived near the test site and shared stories about relatives dying from cancer. He said he believes they should be included in the federal Radiation Exposure Compensation Act program, which could provide a $50,000 payout.

Nicole Navas, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Division, which oversees the program, said lawmakers would have to amend the act to expand payouts to New Mexico residents. Now, the law only covers areas in Nevada, Arizona and Utah that are downwind from a different test site.

“Because this downwind area is defined by federal statute, the Department of Justice lacks discretion to expand the area to include locations in New Mexico downwind of the Trinity test,” Navas said.

The blast sent out a flash of light seen as far as nearly 300 miles away, and Army officials said at the time it was a result of an ammunition explosion. Residents did not learn it was an atomic bomb until the U.S. dropped the weapon on Japan a month later, helping end World War II.

Many of those living near the Trinity Site were not told about the dangers and later suffered rare forms of cancer, Tularosa residents say. They say they want acknowledgement and compensation from the U.S. government.

Researchers from the National Cancer Institute are studying past and present cancer cases in New Mexico that might be related to the test. A previous study done by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found exposure rates near the Trinity Site were thousands of times higher than allowed.

Tina Cordova, co-founder of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders, said she was pleased the country finally was talking about the effects of the bomb on nearby residents.

“This is part of the story that shouldn’t be ignored any longer,” Cordova said.

The test took place in southern New Mexico as part of the Manhattan Project, the secretive World War II program that provided enriched uranium for the atomic bomb.

During the project, Los Alamos scientists worked to develop the weapon dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It involved three research and production facilities at Los Alamos; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Hanford, Washington.

New Mexico’s three congressional representatives joined Udall in supporting changes to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to include New Mexico residents.

Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, D-Santa Fe, said in a statement that the 70th anniversary of the Trinity Test should include commemorations to the scientific accomplishments as well as to unknowing suffering by residents.

“We remember those who continue to bear the costs of nuclear testing decades later and recommit to seeking recognition and compensation for the men and women who have been gravely impacted,” Lujan said.

Under the act, individuals who reside in a specified downwind county for the required period of time and contracted a covered disease are eligible for a one-time $50,000 lump sum award.

Read Full Article: AP

70 years after 1st atomic bomb test, residents want US help

Image Credit: Wikipedia

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) — An unknown blast shook the desolate New Mexico desert on July 16, 1945, unsettling the historic Hispanic village of Tularosa.

Most residents lacked phones and radios, so they relaxed when Army officials said it was just an ammunition explosion — despite the raining ash.

They didn’t learn scientists from the then-secret city of Los Alamos successfully detonated the first atomic bomb at the nearby Trinity Site until after the U.S. announced it had dropped the weapon on Japan a month later, helping end World War II.

“It was a source of pride,” Tina Cordova, a former Tularosa resident whose father was 3 years old during the Trinity Test.

It became a source of anger after many residents developed cancer and blamed it for their health problems.

Thursday marks the 70th anniversary of the test that took place as part of the Manhattan Project, the secretive World War II program that provided enriched uranium for the atomic bomb. While the state holds commemorative events, Tularosa residents press for acknowledgement and compensation from the U.S. government.

Cordova, co-founder of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders, said the aftermath caused rare forms of cancer for many of the 30,000 people living in the area. Residents weren’t told about the dangers of the test site and often picnicked there and took artifacts, including the radioactive green glass known as “trinitite,” she said.

Researchers from the National Cancer Institute are studying past and present cancer cases in New Mexico that might be related to the test.

“It’s not about anti-nuclear protests,” said Cordova, a cancer survivor. “We want recognition from the U.S. government that they did this to us, that they came here and did this test. And that they walked away and left us for 70 years to deal with it on our own.”

Vera Burnett-Powell, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Radiation Exposure Compensation Act program, did not immediately return a phone message and email from The Associated Press.

Cordova’s father, Anastacio “Tacho” Cordova, suffered multiple forms of cancer. He died in 2013, and she believes his illnesses were related to Trinity’s aftermath.

During the Manhattan Project, Los Alamos scientists worked to develop the weapon that was dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It involved three research and production facilities at Los Alamos; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Hanford, Washington. President Barack Obama signed federal legislation last year to preserve sites that helped with the bomb’s creation.

Retired physicist Duane Hughes, who gives tours at the National Museum of Nuclear Science & History in Albuquerque, said the history of the Trinity Test is important because it helped end the war and set the stage for a Cold War arms race.

“I don’t know if anyone thought it was a failure,” said Hughes, who is scheduled to give a lecture Thursday about the Trinity Test. “It really changed the history of the world.”

Meanwhile, writers with the WGN America show “Manhattan” are tackling questions about Trinity for its upcoming second season. The series follows a group of Los Alamos scientists as they face moral quandaries involving the bomb.

The show doesn’t seek to preach but hopes to demonstrate the project’s complexities, “Manhattan” creator Sam Shaw said. He didn’t want to give away too many details of the upcoming season but said writers couldn’t ignore the plight of residents from nearby towns like Tularosa.

Read Full Article: AP

Monsanto says panel to review WHO finding on cancer link to herbicide

Image Credit: REUTERS/CHARLES PLATIAU

Monsanto Co, whose Roundup product is one of the world’s most widely used herbicides, said on Tuesday it has arranged for an outside scientific review of a World Health Organization finding that the weed killer’s key ingredient probably causes cancer.

The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said in March that it had concluded that the ingredient, called glyphosate, was probably carcinogenic after reviewing a range of scientific literature. [ID:nL2N0WM2I4]

Monsanto reacted to the finding by demanding a retraction, labeling the findings by a team of international cancer scientists as “junk science.” [ID:nL2N0WP0UM]

On Tuesday, Monsanto said it had hired Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy to convene a panel of internationally recognized scientific experts to review IARC’s work. The experts include medical doctors, cancer experts, and individuals with doctoral degrees who are specialists in public health, the Creve Coeur, Missouri-based company said.

Monsanto President Brett Begemann said his company is confident in the safety of its herbicide products, and the review is being done primarily to reassure consumers and others.

“It has created a lot of confusion,” Begemann said of the IARC cancer link finding. “This panel is going to review the data thoroughly, and they are going to make their findings available to everyone for review.”

Monsanto said the process and the findings will be independent and will be transparent. But the company said it would be involved in providing information and data for the review.

Farmers have been using glyphosate in increasing quantities since Monsanto in the mid-1990s introduced crops genetically engineered to withstand being sprayed with Roundup.

Genetically modified corn, soybeans and other crops branded as “Roundup Ready” are popular because of the ease with which farmers have been able to kill weeds. But weeds have developed resistance to glyphosate, prompting farmers to use more herbicide.

Agricultural use of glyphosate in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, was more than 283 million pounds (128 million kg), up from 110 million pounds (50 million kg), in 2002, according to U.S. Geological Survey estimates.

Read Full Article: Reuters

Combinations of ‘safe’ chemicals may increase cancer risk, study suggests

Image Credit: Lara Solt/Dallas Morning News/AP

Lots of chemicals are considered safe in low doses. But what happens when you ingest a little bit of a lot of different chemicals over time?

In some cases, these combinations may conspire to increase your risk of cancer, according to a new report.

“Many [chemicals] have the possibility, when they are combined, to cause the initiation of cancer,” said Hemad Yasaei, a cancer biologist at Brunel University in England, one of the authors of the report. “They could have a synergistic or enhanced effect.”

This is not the way regulators typically think about cancer risk when they evaluate a compound’s safety.

Normally, they test an individual chemical on laboratory animals, exposing them to progressively smaller amounts until it no longer causes malignant tumors to grow. Then they take that dose, determine the equivalent for humans, and apply what is called a “margin of safety” by declaring that some small fraction of that low dose is safe for people.

The big assumption driving the margin of safety is that a smaller amount of a chemical is less dangerous than a larger amount. (Think of the familiar axiom, “The dose makes the poison.”)

But that’s not true for all chemicals, experts say. Some chemicals, such as those that mimic hormones, may actually be more dangerous at lower doses because the human body is exquisitely attuned to respond to minute amounts of natural hormones such as estrogen and testosterone.

And regulators haven’t required testing of mixtures of chemicals at all.

“Everybody had been working under the assumption that when we tested these chemicals individually and they didn’t cause cancer below a certain dose, then we’re fine to spray that particular pesticide on your breakfast cereal before it goes into the box,” said Leroy Lowe, president of Canadian nonprofit Getting to Know Cancer and leader of the report published this week by the journal Carcinogenesis.

The new report raises questions about whether this approach is adequate.

Lowe has been making this point for years. One of his organization’s primary aims is to change the way regulators assess the health effects of chemical mixtures.

Humans are exposed to about 80,000 man-made chemicals over their lifetimes, experts say. These chemicals are in the foods we eat, the water we drink and the air we breathe.

“We live in a chemical soup,” said toxicologist Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who was not involved in the new study.

The research team — a coalition of 174 researchers from 28 countries — set out to determine whether mixtures of these chemicals, at the very tiny concentrations found in the environment, could plausibly trigger the formation of cancerous tumors. They focused on 85 particular chemicals that were impossible to avoid in modern life, that were likely to disturb biological function and were not thought to pose cancer risks at the very low doses that people tend to ingest them.

“We were only looking at the tip of the iceberg,” Yasaei said.

The researchers scoured the scientific literature to understand how each of these chemicals could affect 10 important processes that are essential to cancer development. Among them: tumor-promoting inflammation, resistance to cell death and the formation of new blood vessels to feed malignant cells.

In addition, they categorized whether each of the chemicals exerted biological effects at very low doses to which humans are ubiquitously exposed. (These doses are so small that they tend to be measured in parts per million or parts per billion.)

Of the 85 chemicals researchers examined, 50 were found to affect cancer-causing processes in the body, even at very low doses.

These 50 everyday chemicals included bisphenol A (used in manufacturing plastics), triclosan (often found in hand sanitizer and anti-bacterial soap) and atrazine (a commonly used herbicide). Since each of these chemicals affects different processes that could lead to cancer — bisphenol A makes cells less sensitive to signals to stop reproducing, for example, while atrazine encourages inflammation — it’s plausible that consuming mixtures of these chemicals is riskier than consuming any one individually.

Read Full Article: The Los Angeles Times

WHO agency says insecticides lindane and DDT linked to cancer

Image Credit: Fox News

The insecticide lindane, once widely used in agriculture and to treat human lice and scabies, causes cancer and has been specifically linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the World Health Organization said on Tuesday.

The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) also said that DDT, or dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, probably causes cancer, with scientific evidence linking it to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), testicular cancer and liver cancer.

In a review of various agricultural chemicals, IARC’s specialist panel said it had decided to classify lindane as “carcinogenic to humans” in its Group 1 category, DDT as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in its Group 2A class, and the herbicide 2,4-D as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in its Group 2B.

It said epidemiological studies did not find strong or consistent increases in risk of NHL or other cancers from 2,4-D exposure, but there was strong evidence it induces oxidative stress, a process that can damage cells in the body, and moderate evidence it can suppress the immune system.

Lindane, which since 2009 has been banned or restricted in most countries under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, was previously used extensively for insect control in agriculture. An exemption to the ban allows it to be used as a second-line treatment for lice and scabies.

IARC said high exposures to lindane have previously been reported among agricultural workers and pesticide applicators.

“Large epidemiological studies of agricultural exposures in the United States and Canada showed a 60 percent increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in those exposed to lindane,” it said.

DDT was introduced for the control of insect-borne diseases during World War Two and was later applied widely to eradicate malaria and in agriculture.

Although most uses of it were banned from the 1970s, IARC cautioned that DDT and its breakdown products are “highly persistent and can be found in the environment and in animal and human tissues throughout the world”.

“Exposure to DDT still occurs, mainly through diet,” it said, adding that DDT is still used, mainly for malaria control in parts of Africa, although under very strict conditions.

Since it was introduced in 1945, 2,4-D has been widely used to control weeds in agriculture, forestry and urban and residential settings.

Read Full Article: Reuters

Five day ‘fasting’ diet slows down ageing and may add years to life

Image Credit: Getty Images

A five day diet which mimics fasting could slow down ageing, add years to life, boost the immune system and cut the risk of heart disease and cancer, scientists believe.

The plan which restricts calories to between one third and a half of normal intake has been developed by academics at the University of Southern California.

Last year the same team discovered that fasting can regenerate the entire immune system, bringing a host of long-term health benefits.

But now they have found that a calorie-restricted diet comprising of vegetable soups and chamomile tea has the same affect. And dieters only need to follow the Fasting Mimicking Diet (FMD) for five days a month, eating what they like for the rest of the time.

“Strict fasting is hard for people to stick to, and it can also be dangerous, so we developed a complex diet that triggers the same effects in the body,’ said Professor Valter Longo, USC Davis School of Gerontology and director of the USC Longevity Institute.

“I’ve personally tried both, and the fasting mimicking diet is a lot easier and also a lot safer.

“I think based on the markers for ageing and disease in humans it has the potential to add a number of years of life but more importantly to have a major impact on diabetes, cancer, heart disease and other age-related disease.”

Day one of the diet comprises:

• 10 per cent protein, 56 per cent fat and 34 per cent carbohydrate, making 1,090 calories

Days two to five:

• Nine per cent protein, 44 per cent fat and 47 per cent carbohydrate making 725 calories

When humans tested out the regimen, within three months they had reduced biomarkers linked to ageing, diabetes, cancer and heart disease as well as cutting overall body fat.

For 25 days a month, study participants went back to their regular eating habits — good or bad They were not asked to change their diet and still saw positive changes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^{Camomile tea and vegetable soup were highlighted as foods to eat in the new regimen}

Feeding mice the equivalent restricted diet elevated the number of regenerative stem cells in the organs, including the brain where it encouraged the creation of new neurons which improved memory and learning.

When fed to middle aged mice, the diet also reduced the incidence of cancer, boosted the immune system, reduced inflammatory diseases, slowed bone mineral density loss and improved the cognitive abilities of older mice tracked in the study.

The researchers think it works by slashing a hormone which encourages growth, and has been linked to cancer susceptibility. Essentially it tricks the body into ageing more slowly.

“It’s about reprogramming the body so it enters a slower aging mode, but also rejuvenating it through stem cell-based regeneration,’ Professor Longo added.

“It’s not a typical diet because it isn’t something you need to stay on.”

• Statins save fewer lives than exercising and eating sensibly, say scientists
• Eat within 12-hour window to lose weight, say scientists
• No link found between saturated fat and heart disease

Previous research has shown that cutting calories not only prevents weight gain but also prolongs good health and longevity.

However British health experts said that people may find it easier to just alter daily calorie intake rather than embarking on the intense five-day diet.

Naveed Sattar, professor of Metabolic Medicine at the University of Glasgow said: “The best way to alter weight trajectory or to lose weight is to make permanent and sustainable changes in ones dietary composition so that less high density calories like cakes, biscuits, crisps.

“This way, folk can eat three meals a day and still have total less calorie intake than they had previously. This, for me, is better for mind and body, and critically, more sustainable.”

^{The Fasting Mimicking Diet brings a range of health benefits as well as weight loss}

Prof Lynne Cox, Associate Professor of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, said the results look promising.

“ For many years, caloric restriction (cutting out 30-40% of your calories each and every day) has looked the best bet for improving health outcomes during ageing, but this new diet appears much easier to stick to than caloric restriction – in humans, it involves taking low protein plant-based meal replacements that provided a third to a half of normal calorie intake for five days every month over a cycle of three months,” she said.

“What is noteworthy here is that the study incorporates a whole host of experiments from model organisms as simple as yeast cells, through mice and into a small controlled clinical trial in humans. All of the results point in one direction: periodically mimicking fasting leads to marked decreases in risk factors for diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, and, in mice, improved short and long term memory were observed.

“Yes, it needs more tests and in some cases different ways of measuring outcomes. But the trends look interesting. If over a longer time human findings match up to the results in mice then this type of intervention has the potential to improve health – though it is likely to be more relevant to young and middle-aged people as drastic metabolic changes may not be well-tolerated in older people.”

Professor Longo believes that for most normal people, the FMD can be done every three to six months, depending on the abdominal circumference and health status.

For obese subjects or those with elevated disease risk factors, the FMD could be recommended by the physician as often as once every two weeks.

Read Full Article: The Telegraph

Nuts ‘protect against early death’

Eating half a handful of nuts every day could substantially lower the risk of early death, a Dutch study suggests.

Previous studies had already indicated a link with cardiovascular health, but this is the first to look at specific nuts and diseases.

Maastricht University researchers found a 23% lower chance of death during the 10-year study in people eating at least 10g (0.3oz) of nuts or peanuts a day.

There was no benefit for peanut butter, which is high in salt and trans fats.

What’s in a nut?

• monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids
• various vitamins
• fibre
• antioxidants
• other bioactive compounds

More than 120,000 Dutch 55-to-69-year-old men and women provided dietary and lifestyle information in 1986, and then their mortality rate was looked at 10 years later.

The premature mortality risk due to cancer, diabetes, respiratory and neurodegenerative diseases was lower among the nut consumers.

There was an average 23% lower risk of 10-year mortality across all diseases, with a decrease of:

• 45% for neurodegenerative disease
• 39% for respiratory disease
• 30% for diabetes

Prof Piet van den Brandt, who led the study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, said: “It was remarkable that substantially lower mortality was already observed at consumption levels of 15g of nuts or peanuts on average per day.”

Read Full Article: BBC News

​Breast cancer cases near Welsh nuclear plant 5 times higher than expected – academic

Image Credit: Reuters / Eric Gaillard

Breast cancer rates are five times higher than expected near a defunct nuclear power plant in Wales, according to a study by environmental scientist Dr Chris Busby.

The power plant in Trawsfynydd, which has not been in use since 1993 but is yet to be decommissioned, relied on a nearby lake to operate its cooling system.

It’s alleged that contaminated water was returned to the same body of water.

Busby’s investigation claims 90 percent of those living in areas downwind of the plant have been tested.

The report, published in the Jacobs Journal of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, says: “Trawsfynydd is a ‘dirty’ nuclear power station. As it has carbon dioxide gas-cooled graphite block reactors, its releases to air are higher than most other types of nuclear reactor.

“In addition, all the liquid releases are discharged to the lake, where they have accumulated to the lake body sediment,” the investigation claims.

“Results show very clearly that the downwind population has suffered because of these exposures.”

“This is most clear in breast cancer in younger women below 60, where the rates were almost five times the expected.”

“Additionally we see a doubling of risk in those who ate fish from Trawsfynydd Lake, which supports the conclusion that it is mainly a nuclear power station effect that is being seen.”

Busby, who has acted as an adviser to the Green Party, has been subject to controversy in the past.

In 2011, his claims there was a leukemia cluster in North Wales were met with opposition from other prominent environmental activists, including the Guardian writer George Monbiot.

In a piece for the paper published in 2011, Monbiot wrote that Busby’s claims “were the result of some astonishing statistical mistakes.”

He claimed an assessment of Busby’s findings – which were not peer-reviewed – found that Busby has counted Welsh leukemia incidences twice and overestimated the number of child leukemia cases by 90 percent.

Read Full Article: RT

The Three Reasons So Many People are Getting Cancer (Op-Ed)

Image Credit: wavebreakmedia |Shutterstock.com

Dr. Bhavesh Balar is a board-certified hematologist and oncologist on staff at CentraState Medical Center in Freehold, NJ, where he serves as chairman of the hospital’s Cancer Committee. He is also a medical director at Regional Cancer Care Associates in New Jersey. He contributed this article to Live Science’s Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

As an oncologist, I’m frequently asked why so many people these days are being diagnosed with cancer. Considering the significant inroads we’ve made over the past 50 years in terms of cancer research, prevention, diagnosis and treatment, it doesn’t seem to make sense.

The good news is that each of us is more likely to survive a cancer diagnosis and go on to enjoy a high quality of life than at any other time in history. There are estimated to be nearly 14.5 million cancer survivors in the United States.

While there are several factors contributing to the increase in cancer diagnoses, there are three main reasons which account for most of the cancer cases in the U.S.

1. Older people get cancer most often, and we’re getting older

Like heart disease, cancer largely affects the senior population. About 77 percent of all cancers are diagnosed in people over age 55, a segment of the U.S. population that is expected to double by 2060. Therefore, more seniors means more cases of cancer. Keep in mind, seniors are also living decades longer than just a century ago, when you were not expected to live beyond your mid-50s. According to the National Cancer Institute, seniors have an average life expectancy of about 79 years, on average, while 73 is the median age of cancer death.

2. Obesity opens the door to several types of cancer

A second key factor in our rising cancer rates is our country’s battle with obesity and the continued lack of proper diet, exercise and weight control for many Americans. In 2014, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) issued a report warning that obesity will soon overtake tobacco as the No. 1 risk factor for cancer. Obesity is associated with increased risk of the following cancer types: breast (after menopause), colon and rectal, esophageal, endometrial, pancreatic, kidney, thyroid and gallbladder.

3. Certain cancer types are on the rise

Despite increased awareness, there are some cancer types that continue to gain ground and contribute to the cancer increase:

HPV. Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted disease, and consists of 40 different mutations, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which also reports that 79 million Americans are infected, most of whom have no outward symptoms. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved vaccines can protect against some of the most common types. Head and neck cancers are increasingly attributed to HPV, including cancers in the back of the throat, most commonly in the base of the tongue and tonsils. In addition, high-risk types can cause cancer of the cervix, vagina, vulva, anus and penis. [Protect Your Teen from HPV, Prevent Deadly Cancers (Op-Ed)]

The virus can cause normal cells in infected skin to become abnormal. In most cases, the body fights off the HPV infection naturally and infected cells then go back to normal. But in cases when the body does not fight off the virus, HPV can cause cellular changes that may eventually turn into cancer years after the initial infection.

Gastrointestinal cancers. These cancers affect the digestive system — the stomach, gallbladder, liver, pancreas and bowel (small intestine, large intestine or colon , and rectum). ESPN anchor Stuart Scott lost his long battle with appendiceal (appendix) cancer in early 2015, which has recently brought more attention to these lesser-known cancer types.

Gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas (stomach cancer) as well as pancreatic, liver and kidney cancers have increased recently. Again, obesity may play a role here. About half of liver cancers in the United States are among people with chronic hepatitis C infections, and the increase in incidence is consistent with the aging of the hepatitis C-infected population. Cancers in that region of the body can be particularly difficult to diagnose, as symptoms often present similarly to less-threatening conditions, such as irritable bowel syndrome or acid reflux. This allows the cancer to spread, undiagnosed and untreated. [Want to Cut Your Cancer Risk? Lose That Weight (Op-Ed )]

Skin cancer. One of the most preventable cancers continues its reign as the most common. Despite efforts to address skin cancer risk factors, such as inadequate sun protection and intentional tanning behaviors, skin cancer rates — including rates of melanoma — have increased in the United States every year since 2001, according to the CDC. Many Americans tan intentionally for cosmetic reasons, and by doing so increase their risk. The U.S. Surgeon General reported that 33 percent of Americans experienced a sunburn, a key skin cancer risk factor, in 2014. The two most common skin cancer types are basal cell and squamous cell, which usually form on the head, face, neck, hands and arms. Melanoma accounts for less than two percent of skin cancer cases — but results in the most deaths. A bright spot is that non-melanoma cancers are being diagnosed and treated earlier and with more success.

Read Full Article: Live Science

Don’t take a seat: Panel says you should stand for 2 hours

Image Credit: AP Photo/Alex Cossio, File

LONDON (AP) — Are you sitting down? In that case, you should probably stand up before reading this.

In the first advice of its kind, British experts are recommending office workers stand for at least two hours a day, in a warning against the dangers of prolonged sitting.

The guidelines were developed by a group of experts invited by Public Health England and an advocacy group and were published online Monday in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

The experts recommend people start with two hours of standing or light activity, adding they should eventually double that to four hours.

In recent years, the hazards of sitting too much have been compared to those of smoking, with research suggesting people who spend most of their days seated are more likely to be fat, have heart problems, cancer and even die earlier.

Not even regular exercise seems to help.

“Even if you’re meeting your physical activity guidelines, you cannot undo the risks of prolonged sitting,” said Gavin Bradley, director of the campaign group Get Britain Standing, one of the authors of the new guidance. Bradley, who spoke during a telephone interview while walking, said officials estimate the average Briton sits for more than half of their working hours. His group is expanding its campaign to other countries including the U.S. on Tuesday and is pushing for more people to have access to a desk that allows them to stand.

According to the guidelines, people who sit the most have more than twice the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, a 13 percent increased risk of cancer and a 17 percent increased risk of premature death, compared to those who sit the least.

Jenny Nissler, an occupational physical therapist and spokeswoman for Britain’s Chartered Society of Physiotherapists, said people who sit for long stretches could be more prone to joint stiffness and back pain.

“Companies should reconsider the culture around taking regular breaks and think about whether meetings could be held standing up or walking,” she said.

Read Full Article: AP